Apr 28, 2011

Does Lotus really know? And does it matter? - vowe.net

The subtext on the product quality in this tread is most interesting to me:

Lotus Connections just became IBM Connections. Sametime may be next. Portal has always been WebSphere. Lotus as a brand has been toned down even at Lotusphere. And business cards now read "IBM Collaboration Solutions".

vowe.net: Does Lotus really know? And does it matter?

Mar 30, 2011

Adult Supervision

Although it should be common sense to most technology firms, especially ones as smart as Google, apparently some adults need to step in and enforce ground rules for privacy. In a fist-time enforcement of the US-EU Safe Harbor Act by the FTC, Google has opted to settle and "put this behind' itself.
The FTC wrote in a statement, "The proposed settlement bars the company from future privacy misrepresentations, requires it to implement a comprehensive privacy program, and calls for regular, independent privacy audits for the next 20 years."
In a contrite but typically obtuse blog post Google apologized for the lack of transparency and promised to do better. There may be no monetary damages (yet), but being grounded for 20 years is pretty significant. It's a strong message to the other kids to start being careful about privacy.

Google's FTC Settlement Over Privacy Breach Makes History

Feb 13, 2011

Dee Hock’s 1996 Quote…via Linda Stone

Succinct food for thought from Linda Stone...

Today, we are Knowledge Workers evolving into Understanding Workers. Understanding Workers use technology to anticipate, judge and act.

Jan 25, 2011

Enabling Participation: More Art Than Science (Collaborative Thinking)

Mike's follow-on post to social media adoption in the workplace. He offers some practical approaches to fostering adoption.


I've argued the degree to which an employee participates above and beyond what their job entails is a daily decision. There are times when we can direct people to communicate, share, and collaborate. We can basically conscript some level of participation based on an employee's role, nature of their work activities, and their expectation of getting something in return (e.g., a good review, being paid, keeping their job). However, as knowledge management strategists have learned long ago, there are limits to what we can command people to do - especially when it comes to what's in their heads, and asking them to volunteer in contexts such as a social network site.Understanding the psychology and sociology behind participation remains largely unknown within the enterprise.
Having personally been involved in delivering collaborative applications for over 20 years and been admonished as a "bad dog" by end user communities that hated it when I said the words "collaboration and sharing," I can say first hand that the way to adoption is a combination of Mike's suggestions. The combination of which depends greatly on the make-up of the company, its culture, its business, and its progressiveness.

I also think for IT there's the high-road lack-of-transparency path. If you've ever seen the IT Crowd you know the deep communication gap is between IT and the user community ("...you don't want to end up in the middle of invalid memory..."). In the end, as Mike points out in his previous post, productivity and technology is not about the technology you deploy or the productivity concept you're trying to improve, it's about getting people to change their habits and creating the net effect of collaboration, communication, social enterprise, fill in the blank. As IT providers we need to become less enamored by our amazingly fun jobs. Yes, for us the end is the technology but for users the end is getting their jobs done with the least hassle. Sometimes leaving out the "you're going to collaborate" or "let's do knowledge management" or "time to be a social enterprise" is your friend. I've found huge success to adoption when I roll up my sleeves and assist users in learning how to use the tools I provide to do their jobs. That goes from the highest to the lowest rankings in the organization.

Enabling Participation: More Art Than Science (Collaborative Thinking)

Jan 24, 2011

Changing IT Mindsets From Deployment To Adoption (Collaborative Thinking)

Hear, hear!


We should not be so enamored by what we think is our current right answer from a technology perspective that we forget the non-technological things we need to enable so that people (and the organization at large) can realize and sustain the value derived from use of the tools.

Within many organizations, the plan-build-run philosophy still frames our view of IT – once a system is implemented (i.e., deployed), the project is “over” – resources are reallocated, budgets are closed out, systems go into some type of maintenance mode or await the next release cycle of new development. We then wait and watch for the results promised by the project (e.g., ROI). Often those results are based on metrics that examine cause-effect impacts and improved business outcomes. We want benefits to be self-evident quickly. We tend to struggle when project results are subjective, can only be inferred, or correlated to improvements that take more time to emerge than anticipated.


Changing IT Mindsets From Deployment To Adoption (Collaborative Thinking)